Issues : Errors in EE
|
b. 315
|
composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor
..
In EE there is no category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in EE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 315
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
The three bass octaves are provided with staccato marks in A. Only the first one is a dot, which seems to be Chopin's inadvertence – it is supported by both the next two L.H. wedges and the R.H. wedges in these places. In this case, we consider the unification process carried out by GE to be justified and adopt it to the main text. The omission of the second mark in GE1 (→GE2) must have resulted from lack of space; the wedge was added in GE3. The easiest explanation for the fact that the versions of FE and EE are devoid of marks would be oversights. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions |
||||||||||||
|
b. 320
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 321
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In the main text, we give the unquestionable, as far as the sources and music are concerned, version of FE. The octave in GE and EE may be either a mistake or a revision; at the same time, in each of these editions, the reason could have been different. In each case, the fact that the revisers did not take into account the analogy with the two previous bars is puzzling. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
||||||||||||
|
b. 324
|
composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I
..
In FEH, the fingering digits for the 5th and 4th last semiquavers – 1-2 – are written twice, with different pencils. Since it was the same digits that were written twice, it seems that the person who was writing them for the second time did not notice the notation or wanted to enhance its legibility. In both cases, one of the writing persons could have been Chopin, hence we include those digits in the main text. The fingering digit given for the 9th semiquaver in EE is most probably erroneous – we are almost certainly talking about the 2nd finger and not third, as the digit '2' should be understood in the English system of marking fingers. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in EE , Annotations in FEH |
marking, which obviously is an error, as in b. 319 there is an appropriate 
marking.
tied in 
